The selected candidate does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, and a wait-listed candidate has no vested right to be appointed except when a selected candidate does not join and the waiting list is still operative.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Office\memorandum dated 31-1-2003 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government and further for quashing the Advertisement dated 20-9-2002 published in the Employment news. The second prayer Is for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give appointment to the petitioner against the vacancies existing for the year 1997 for the post of Child Development Project Officer.

2. The State Government issued Advertisement No. A-6/e-1/97-98 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Zila Karyakram Adhikari (District Programme Officer) and Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari (Child Development Project Officer ). The said advertisement was published in the newspapers, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and was allotted Roll No. 010704. The petitioner appeared in the written examination which was held In April, 1998 the result of which was declared on 13-10-1998 in which the petitioner was declared successful. The petitioner was called for interview by the U. P. Public Service Commission and he was Interviewed on 7-11-1998.

3. The final result was declared on 16-11-1998 in which the petitioner was not found selected. According to the petitioner he had secured 626 marks out of a total of 900 marks. Further according to the petitioner in the waiting list prepared by the Commission his name found place at serial No. 10. According to the petitioner more than ten candidates had not joined and 11 candidates had left after joining pursuant to the declaration of the result, as such he was entitled to be issued the appointment letter. The petitioner submitted a representation which was not being decided whereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 41674 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by order of this Court dated 30-9-2002 with the direction to the State Government to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. Pursuant to the said direction the State Government had passed the impugned order dated 31-1-2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner relying on the office order dated 31-1-1994 and 23-12-1997. It is this order, which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. Further, as the State Government issued a fresh advertisement for filling up 64 posts of Child Development Project Officer, the petitioner has challenged the said advertisement also. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him against the vacancies of 1997.

4. We have heard Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J. P. Tripathi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the U. P. Public Service Commission and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have also perused the original record which was summoned by this Court vide order dated 19-9-2005.

5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents committed illegality in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. According to him from the declared list of successful candidates more than ten had not joined within the period of one year which was the life of the select list/waiting list and, therefore, the petitioner should have been offered the appointment. The petitioner had been agitating for his claim from the very beginning and the respondents having not taken any timely action in this regard and having not acted in time by not issuing the appointment letter cannot subsequently turn around and say that as the life of the select list has expired due to the fact that more than one year has elapsed, therefore, the petitioner cannot be issued the appointment letter.

6. Further submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that even after the expiry of the waiting list appointment letter could be issued and therefore, the respondents are not right